Kevin's Watch

I don't know that I agree with "progress" as a term to describe the social climate. Sure, there are pockets of change, and awareness levels are higher, but overall I don't see progress.
Power is still power, whether you wield a sword of politics or a sword of steel. Men have become more subtle in their ways, and weapons have changed, but overall, we have not progressed beyond the point of letting the instincts of self-preservation rule our society.
Whether you are leading your clan to battle with clubs and spears to protect you cave from intruders, or wielding the automatic might of todays sodiers in battle, the motivations are still territorial and preservationistic.

Progress, no. I don't see it.

Evolution refers to change, not 'progress'. No direction is specified, nor is there any inclination towards 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad'. Social evolution does not require a move towards something better, just something different.

While I agree that the basic motivations are the same, the fact is that they will probably always, at least for the foreseeable future, remain that way.

The progress, as I said before, lies in the fact that not only do we realise it, but we are trying to do things to reduce it. The simple fact that awareness is greater, is in itself progress. If we evaluate progress only in terms of overall results, it may not look so good. But if we evaluate it in terms of the number of people trying, I think it looks a good deal better. Governments are always the slowest t change. They change only when so many "ordinary" people have changed, that they have to, in order to remain even vaguely relevant.

--Avatar

We have always "realized it" and tried to change it. And by so doing, we have taken our places in the pattern. But the pattern as a whole has not progressed. Because evolution demands struggle. Evolution demands power. As soon as one group has power, another is right on their heels trying to take it away.

I do, however agree that the number of people trying has increased, and eventual progress seems more likely. I must also state that my opinion on this particular matter is based on the destination, not the journey.

As usual, a fundamental difference in perspective. Assuming as I do that, to all intents and purposes, the journey itself is infinite, that makes it the destination.

--A

...On the other hand, maybe we just need to avoid destroying the planet before First Contact.

... Excepting the possibility that it's First Contact that destroys our planet and/or us. (Those aliens might be nasty, by which I mean, like us.)

Eek. Good point... unfortunately.

Wayfriend wrote:... (Those aliens might be nasty, by which I mean, like us.)

Very good point.

--A

No, really. Let's imagine that we foul our planet so much that we become desperate to locate another, or several, in which to live. We barely have the technology and resources to reach one or two. Then, when we get there, we discover that the planet is already populated by little green guys a millennium or two behind us in the civilization scale.

Consider our world leaders. Consider the powerful people who run the planet behind the world leaders. What do you think we'd do? What would we seem like to the little green guys?

If humans manage to spread throughout the universe, will we deserve what we take, or will we be a cancer?

On that note..personally I don't think it's a bad idea to do some exploration of some closer neighbors, before we pillage everyhting our earth has to offer.

What I mean is metals and ores that are on other planets and moons..I wonder if it is forseable in the near future that we could use those resources?

It may depend on when we do it. If it's anytime soon, we'll be a cancer. Maybe even no matter when it happens.

--Avatar

Wayfriend wrote:If you read a lot of science fiction, most far-future stories contain humans-as-humans-now. Sure, they have super computers and virtual reality, they are cybernetic and they download their brains into computers. But underneath it all they are always the same old humans model 1950.

Yes, the one unchanging thing has been human nature. But I wonder if it will stay that way. Is it possible that human nature as we know it today will become "extinct" even if humankind itself survives?

What about the ever-increasingly powerful drugs that 21st century medicine will bring us?

In Our Posthuman Future, Francis Fukuyama argues that the habitual and widespread use of mood-altering medications will "narrow and impoverish" the range of human character. He cites the use of Prozac to counter depression; also Ritalin, used to clamp down hyperactive but otherwise healthy children. According to Fukuyama, the use of these drugs is already constricting the range of personality types that are considered normal and acceptable. He foresees an even greater "narrowing" when even more powerful and effective drugs are developed that could threaten what he regards as the essence of our humanity.

Fukuyama fears that drugs will become used more and more to tone down extremes of mood and behaviour. In this way, our species could degenerate into a society of zombies, like the dystopia of Huxley's A Brave New World. (It should be said though, that Fukuyama is seen as bit of an alarmist in some quarters.)

Steve Bloom of Hammersmith Hospital in London is a specialist in the technique of injecting hormones that act directly on the brain -- specifically the hormone PYY 3-36, which has been shown to eliminate feelings of hunger by acting directly on the hypothalamus. This kind of "targeted" hormonal treatment would be able to effect changes to our personality in a much more potent way than Prozac ever could. In the New Scientist (October 10, 2002) Dr. Bloom expresses his concern about where this research could lead in ten years: "If we can alter people's desire for food, we can alter other deep-seated desires: the hypothalamus is also home to brain circuits that influence sex drive and sexual orientation."

So what does this mean for the nature of humans? Will our human "essence" remain inviolate, or will even our natures become malleable and, dare I say, programmable, due to these kinds of medical advances?

Matrixman wrote:

Wayfriend wrote:If you read a lot of science fiction, most far-future stories contain humans-as-humans-now. Sure, they have super computers and virtual reality, they are cybernetic and they download their brains into computers. But underneath it all they are always the same old humans model 1950.

Yes, the one unchanging thing has been human nature. But I wonder if it will stay that way. Is it possible that human nature as we know it today will become "extinct" even if humankind itself survives?

What about the ever-increasingly powerful drugs that 21st century medicine will bring us?

I think it more likely we'd change ourselves genetically over time. At some point the moral barriers will fall and we'll start to genetically change ourselves. First to get rid of disease, but later......

Great post MatrixMan. You a fan of Fukuyama? I've only read The End of History and the Last Man, and although I disagreed in general with his conclusions and reasoning, I quite enjoyed it.

Looks like I'm gonna have to find this one. The argument you cite is a convincing one.

Damelon, although I agree with you, I'm not sure that MM's idea won't happen too, perhaps before we manage to get over those moral barriers.

Although some may think that those morals change too quickly, they're surprisingly resistant to change, and it takes a lot of effort. The "chemical revolution" on the other hand, is already well established, and has been for years now. It'll be easier to extend that at first. (Although for what motives, I'm not sure.)

--Avatar

I agree that genetic modification will likely happen. That genie is out of the bottle. But future genetic changes to human beings would still require a few generations to be manifest. Whereas, the "chemical revolution" as Avatar put it, is here and now. Through widely accessed and addictive drugs, the behaviour and "morals" of whole populations could be altered (and controlled?) much more quickly than at the speed of genetic change. (Of course, genetic changes would still be much faster than any "natural" evolutionary changes.)

Fan of Francis Fukuyama? Fan of Francis Fukuyama? Fan of Francis Fukuyama?

(Come on, say it quick three times! Betcha can't without spitting all over your monitor, heh heh...)

I'm not any special fan of him. But his ideas are interesting for sure. Maybe he does seem to cry wolf a lot, but someone's gotta do it. And hey, I don't read books, I read good book reviews.

Interesting, drugs to change morals? That's a tough one. I suppose it depends on the sort of change you mean. But in terms of affecting the deep-seated impulses of the brain, the way that things like drugs for bi-polar disorder do, yeah. A scary prospect that.

I'm pretty much against that type of psycho-surgery. (And they do actually do surgery on the psyche. Insert an electrode, and fry (literally) an area of brain cells in a region they think is responsible for certain behaviour/feelings/whatever. Terrifying. Doing it with drugs is not much different, and has its advantages. I'm fond of my psyche. Flaws and all.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Interesting, drugs to change morals? That's a tough one. I suppose it depends on the sort of change you mean. But in terms of affecting the deep-seated impulses of the brain, the way that things like drugs for bi-polar disorder do, yeah. A scary prospect that.

I'm pretty much against that type of psycho-surgery. (And they do actually do surgery on the psyche. Insert an electrode, and fry (literally) an area of brain cells in a region they think is responsible for certain behaviour/feelings/whatever. Terrifying. Doing it with drugs is not much different, and has its advantages. I'm fond of my psyche. Flaws and all.

--A

It's a Brave New World, after all. Read that book, and then the diagnosis of ADD, for which we give our childeren pretty little pills, and then come talk to me.

I swear, when SOMA comes, it'll be in Gummi Bear form...

My thought on this Matrixman, is that anything chemical can be lost over time if we were to be thrown back into the "stone age", but that genetic manipulation would remain long afterwards any such knowledge was lost.

Good point, Damelon. Genetic changes would be permanent once achieved, compared with drug-induced changes that must be maintained by the ready availability of the technology to produce the drugs.

Unless something like that hormonal treatment for the hypothalamus also permanently alters the thing it treats in some way, unless reversed by a separate treatment? Ah well, what the heck do I know...